HariPrasad-1
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2016
- Messages
- 9,624
- Likes
- 21,100
1)Then what's the point of this statement if we're getting by the time mwf will be ready. Then we're getting it. Does that mean it is inferior to others what are trying to explain?? I said mwf will have GaN based radars compared to gripen. So you replied me this whose final conclusion is were are working on GaN based radars, do you mean we couldn't make it.
What is bs in first statement..
[/QUOTE]
The point is that you are giving wrong information. We do not have GaN based AESA. It is in making and same way it is in making with other countries as well. You can not compare which is not there with us and what we are going to get in future ignoring that by the time we develop it, Sweden will also develop it. This is a wrong comparison.
AL-31 engine also has almost similar thrust of something like 78/130+. Can it be used in MWF? No. It has far bigger dimension and weight. No way it is suitable for MWF. Similarly, F-16 engine can not be fitted in MWF. You need same dimension engine to replace F 414. It can be either EJ 200 variant of GE 414 EPE or something we are considering in JV With Rafale. It should have same dimension and should be in same weight class. This is the reason why we do not choose F-16 engine. Is it clear now?
Not at all. I explained you earlier as well. After burner is just an enhancement of engine which is used to provide additional power in certain circumstances like take off or some extreme maneuvers. When during 95%+ of flight regime when Afterburner is not used, how can it be a function of MTOW. I repeatedly explains this to you but your Ultra high ego stops you accept it and you are repeating your rant again and again. As I said you, it is a thumb rule for MTOW. 250 Kg per KN. Tejas has 54 KN/89 KN engine. now multiply 54 KN by 250. It is 1350 which was MTOW of Tejas. 76*250=19000 KG which is MTOW of F-16. Take any plane and you will find the ration in Proportion. In modern designs, it has surpassed that figure. MWF is a modern design so it is above 300. Now you want to accept it accept. I am tired of explaining you same thing again and again. You can believe in your ultra high knowledge otherwise.
What is bs in first statement..
[/QUOTE]
The point is that you are giving wrong information. We do not have GaN based AESA. It is in making and same way it is in making with other countries as well. You can not compare which is not there with us and what we are going to get in future ignoring that by the time we develop it, Sweden will also develop it. This is a wrong comparison.
You are saying this because you do not have any idea of engine. You are asking why India did not choose 75/125 KN engine of F-16? and why India will use 75/125 KN variant to be developed? Right? Answer is this:2) Look of iaf would have felt that they need a 75/125 they would have used it ,only you're saying it that mwf need a 75/125, they have 2 option of American ones still preferring f414 because it is enough for it , and it's a cropped delta wing which has less drag than mirage like delta wings...
If they wanted to use same engine, why did they designed the plane which utilizes its power fully. They could have made the plane with MTOW of 21 tons or above had it had the same MTOW to power ratio. Or do you want to say that they intentionally kept it low?
AL-31 engine also has almost similar thrust of something like 78/130+. Can it be used in MWF? No. It has far bigger dimension and weight. No way it is suitable for MWF. Similarly, F-16 engine can not be fitted in MWF. You need same dimension engine to replace F 414. It can be either EJ 200 variant of GE 414 EPE or something we are considering in JV With Rafale. It should have same dimension and should be in same weight class. This is the reason why we do not choose F-16 engine. Is it clear now?
[/QUOTE]3)Lol this is not what f16 was made for its only job was to use it where f15 would have been over kill. USAF had a basic requirement which it fullfiled then why would they make a 21 ton f16 I don't get it why.
If you see from f16 block 15 TO block 62 there have been already alot of enhanced which have increased its payload capacities. I don't get it this 21 tons bs
You gave the example of Mirage by quoting 94 KN engine. you even do not know that it is dry thrust which is important for MTOW not afterburner. Afterburner comes into picture only at the time of take off and some extreme maneuvers. Planes flies all the time without afterburner so MTOW is related to dry thrust and not wet thrust. Dry thrust of M2K is higher than MWF yet both has same MTOW. So even by this logic, MWF is a batter design.
Not at all. I explained you earlier as well. After burner is just an enhancement of engine which is used to provide additional power in certain circumstances like take off or some extreme maneuvers. When during 95%+ of flight regime when Afterburner is not used, how can it be a function of MTOW. I repeatedly explains this to you but your Ultra high ego stops you accept it and you are repeating your rant again and again. As I said you, it is a thumb rule for MTOW. 250 Kg per KN. Tejas has 54 KN/89 KN engine. now multiply 54 KN by 250. It is 1350 which was MTOW of Tejas. 76*250=19000 KG which is MTOW of F-16. Take any plane and you will find the ration in Proportion. In modern designs, it has surpassed that figure. MWF is a modern design so it is above 300. Now you want to accept it accept. I am tired of explaining you same thing again and again. You can believe in your ultra high knowledge otherwise.
You gave the example of Mirage 2000 to Prove that by my logic, Mirage 2000 is a batter plane. I explained you why it is not according to My logic. In demonstration of your ultra high knowledge, you losses the relevance and even misquotes me many time like you did repeatedly in case of F-16 Delta wing. I asked you many time to provide reference but you have not yet done that. Here is what you said which I answered:5)I never said mwf is inferior you're the one who is repeating this rudimentary rant please read again.
It is the most cheap aircraft to operate.. now you are comparing it's thrust to weight ratio with Tejas mk2 and saying it's inferior lol it's not look at gripen with similar mtow look at mirage 2000 with similar mtow it uses even less powerful engine of max thrust 94kn With even more draggy design...